As Lance Armstrong insisted to Oprah Winfrey in Austin that the six-figure donations he gave cycling's world governing body were not related to a failed test being covered up, you could almost hear the sighs of relief from Lausanne.

Beneath the personal soap opera and the devastating impact of Armstrong's actions on those he bullied and threatened during a decade of deceit, his belated confession shed little light on the unanswered questions that remain over the conspiracy that lay beneath it or the extent to which the sport's governing body was complicit or at fault.

While the very fact Armstrong admitted taking a cocktail of drugs to win his seven Tour de France titles laid bare the total inadequacy of the testing programme throughout that era, his claim that he was clean when he came back in 2009 and that the UCI's biological passport had "really worked" was seized upon by the UCI.

It had also been suggested before Armstrong's interview with Winfrey that he might implicate the UCI, its under-pressure former president Hein Verbruggen and his successor, Pat McQuaid, in a conspiracy that the Texan admitted was second only to East Germany's industrial doping programme.

Last year's damning US Anti-Doping Agency report made uncomfortable reading for Verbruggen, McQuaid and the UCI. It repeated allegations, strongly denied by the UCI, from Armstrong's former team-mates Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton that when Armstrong and Johan Bruyneel, then the team's directeur sportif, visited its headquarters in Aigle in May 2002 to offer $100,000 to help the development of cycling, they were doing so in order to buy its silence.

McQuaid has admitted accepting donations totalling $125,000 from Armstrong's camp in 2002 and 2007 but strongly denied there were any conditions attached.

Hamilton has said Armstrong told him that an alleged failed test in the 2001 Tour of Switzerland "was going to be taken care of". But Armstrong told Winfrey that there was no failed test and that the money was paid simply because the UCI asked for it.

"That story isn't true. There was no positive test, there was no paying-off of the lab, there was no secret meeting with the lab director. I am no fan of the UCI but that did not happen," he said.

Martial Saugy, the head of the Lausanne lab that conducted the tests, insisted last October there was no positive test but admitted one of the results for Armstrong was "suspect". The following year, Saugy said, the UCI asked him to meet with Armstrong and explain the testing procedure for EPO. "It was not in exchange for help," Armstrong said of the donation. "They called and said they didn't have a lot of money. I did. They asked if I would make a donation so I did."

The UCI risked further criticism for concentrating in its response on the extent to which the interview apparently exonerated it rather than dealing with the remaining unanswered questions. "Lance Armstrong has confirmed there was no collusion or conspiracy between the UCI and Lance Armstrong," McQuaid said. "There were no positive tests which were covered up and he has confirmed that the donations made to the UCI were to assist in the fight against doping."

Verbruggen said: "I am pleased that after years of accusations being made against me the conspiracy theories have been shown to be nothing more than that. I have no doubt that the peddlers of such accusations and conspiracies will be disappointed by this outcome."

As the UCI seized on the comments, the World Anti-Doping Agency director general, David Howman, said Armstrong had "no credibility" and Usada's chief executive, Travis Tygart, said the televised admission was merely a "small step".

The British Cycling president, Brian Cookson, raised the question of whether anything Armstrong said could be believed given the scale and vehemence of his denials over the past 15 years.

But while the UCI has avoided a damning revelation from Armstrong, the walls continue to close in on the governing body. Wada and Usada have been consistently critical of its approach, believing that it is more concerned with justifying its own behaviour than genuinely learning the lessons for the sport.

They renewed their attack on the UCI this week after a tit-for-tat exchange of statements over the independent commission the cycling body had set up to look into the allegations contained in the Usada report.

Hours before the Armstrong interview aired, Howman lobbed another grenade, saying the independent commission would be a "useless exercise" due to the limited terms of reference laid down by the UCI and its short time frame. "It has again become apparent that rather than deal with the obvious problems that exist within the sport of cycling, the UCI once again would like to avoid its responsibilities and instead seek to blame Wada and others," he said.

Howman also made damning reference to the UCI's missed opportunity in 2005 when Armstrong was accused of doping. "In 2005 when an opportunity arose to address an allegation of doping by Armstrong, the UCI commissioned a so-called independent report – the Vrijman report – which totally failed to address the substance of the allegations," he said.

The independent commission process risks becoming mired in internal dispute, after its panel this week said it required a "truth and reconciliation" element that would give whistleblowers immunity. Tygart, whose dogged pursuit of Armstrong was the driving force behind his fall, has consistently argued that such a process is the only way for the sport to move forward.

In response the UCI said that the role of the independent commission was "not to act as a doping confessional" but to investigate the UCI's own "alleged complicity" with the "alleged doping" of Armstrong. It insisted it would welcome a wider truth and reconciliation commission if it included all endurance sports.

Armstrong, after years of bullying, denials and law suits, insisted to Winfrey that he would be "the first man through the door" if a truth and reconciliation process were set up.

Tygart said: "His admission that he doped throughout his career is a small step in the right direction. But if he is sincere in his desire to correct his past mistakes, he will testify under oath about the full extent of his doping activities."

The battle lines appear drawn. The UCI will press on with its independent commission and attempt to make peace with the three-strong panel, chaired by the former appeal court judge Sir Philip Otton and including the former Paralympian Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson. In going public with their concerns over the process, they have at least demonstrated their determination not to be cowed.

Wada and Usada, meanwhile, insist that only a truly independent, wide-ranging inquiry able to set its own terms of reference, offer immunity to key witnesses and avoid the temptation to draw a line and move on will do.